Letters to the editor: March 24

New bond schedule offers 90% discount to criminals

In an article posted March 19, "Judges consider lower bond amounts for some offenses," it is incorrectly stated that the new bond schedule will require a defendant charged with a Class D felony to post full cash in the amount of $5,000. The new schedule actually states that a defendant can post a $5,000 surety bond (bail bond) or a 10 percent cash bond of just $500.

A 10 percent cash deposit option translates to an immediate 90 percent discount for defendants. Law-abiding citizens should be so lucky. The 10 percent cash option also applies to Class A, B and C misdemeanor offenses.

This new bond schedule will put local bail agents out of business. Eighty percent of their annual income comes from bonding Class D felony and Class A, B and C misdemeanor offenders.

The purpose of a bond is to guarantee a defendant appears in court, not to enrich the court by guaranteeing a criminal offender gets a free lawyer.

Section 17 of the Indiana Constitution states, "Offenses, other than murder or treason, shall be bailable by sufficient sureties." A 10 percent deposit is insufficient to guarantee 100 percent of the bond. For the same 10 percent, a bail bond can be purchased to guarantee the full amount of the bond. A 10 percent guarantee or 100 percent guarantee, hmm?

Defendants will welcome the less restrictive release option provided by the 10 percent cash option. The last thing they want is a bail agent tracking them down when they fail to appear for court.

Michael J. Whitlock

executive vice president

American Surety Co. Underwriters Surety Inc.

Indianapolis

Rokita's flawing thinking
on health care reform

Theodore Rokita's newest old idea is to turn over Medicaid funding to the states in the guise of "economic freedom" (guest column, March 20). That way, when Gov. Mike Pence decides to cut Indiana's income tax to zero, he can eliminate all Medicaid responsibilities entirely and leave the poor and underinsured to fend for themselves.

His justification for this Ayn Randism veiled in token compassion is a mysterious study that states that people with government insurance are 13 percent more likely to die than people without. Does anyone else believe that this study, which he fails to cite, makes sense? On a related note a 2013 study found that 100 percent of people named Theodore Rokita were tea party lunatics.

Rokita's argument is flawed in the typical extremist way, seemingly saying that because people on Medicaid sometimes die they are all better off uninsured. Does he honestly believe that forcing people to go without insurance is going to help doctors and hospitals increase their receipts? People without insurance will still get sick and will visit community ERs, where they are unlikely to pay any portion of the bill. Then instead of our taxes paying for insurance that would provide preventive care, our individual and group insurance premiums will cover the inflated cost of that ER visit.

Rokita should feel free to keep his extremism among his tea party brethren, who also happen to be the only people left in Indiana still under the impression that he is relevant. The rest of us will send him our message during the next election cycle.